-
This document is downloaded from DR‑NTU (https://dr.ntu.edu.sg)Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Influence of fear of failure and kiasuism onentrepreneurial intention
Chua, Sheryl Hwee Chin
2017
Chua, S. H. C. (2017). Influence of fear of failure and kiasuism on entrepreneurial intention.Doctoral thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
http://hdl.handle.net/10356/69557
https://doi.org/10.32657/10356/69557
Downloaded on 10 Jul 2021 07:16:39 SGT
-
INFLUENCE OF
FEAR OF FAILURE AND KIASUISM ON ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
A thesis submitted to the Nanyang Technological University
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2017
CHUA HWEE CHIN
-
i
Acknowledgement
The completion of this thesis is a milestone and would not be possible without
the help of the following people.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my thesis adviser, Dr. Ringo
Ho, for his mentorship and support. I am thankful for the timely feedback Dr. Ringo
has provided me throughout the course of this research. His extensive knowledge in
statistics has been a tremendous help and I am very fortunate to have him as my
adviser.
I am grateful to Dr. Olwen Bedford and Dr. Marilyn Uy for their
encouragement and insight throughout my research. Dr. Olwen expertise in qualitative
methods and Dr. Marilyn expertise in entrepreneurship are extremely valuable for this
research.
I am also thankful to Dr. Annabel Chen and Dr. Kenichi Ito. Their valuable
comments during the confirmation exercise have helped to refine this research. I must
also acknowledge the anonymous reviewers of the publications that have arose from
this thesis as well as researchers I have met at conferences for their constructive
feedback. I would also like to thank the three examiners for reviewing this thesis and
providing suggestions to improve this research work.
Finally, this thesis is dedicated to my friends for their encouragement. My
family for their unconditional love and unwavering support. And, to my fiancé, Andy
Lim, for always believing in me and being my pillar of strength.
-
ii
Abstract
Singapore is a world leader in business facilitation (The World Bank, 2016) yet
entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial activities rates are low (Singer, Amorós,
& Arreola, 2015). Although much is known about “what makes an entrepreneur”, few
studies have looked at what prevents individuals from pursuing an entrepreneurial
career path. Understanding the barriers to entrepreneurship is important as the removal
of the barriers can promote entrepreneurship (Sarasvathy, 2004). Fear of failure (FoF)
and kiasuism, literally translated as fear of losing out, were suggested by local officials
to be the reasons for low entrepreneurial spirit among Singaporeans (Ho, Ang, Loh, &
Ng, 1998; Koh, 2015; Low, 2006; Yu, 2015). This research is motivated by the lack of
prior research on the roles of FoF and kiasuism in influencing entrepreneurship in
Singapore. Three sets of studies were conducted. We attempt to address the limitations
in the current available measures for FoF and kiasuism by developing and validating
new measures for the two constructs. Next, we examine the influence of FoF and
kiasuism on the intention to be an entrepreneur among Singaporean undergraduates.
Theoretical and practical implications of this research are discussed.
-
iii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ........................................................................................................ vi List of Figures ................................................................................................... viii List of Appendices ............................................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............................... 1
1.0 Importance of Examining Entrepreneurial Intention .............................. 2 2.0 Psychological Barriers to Entrepreneurship in Singapore ....................... 3 3.0 Significance of Research .............................................................................. 3 4.0 Outline of Thesis ........................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 7 1.0 Entrepreneurial Intention ........................................................................... 7
1.1 Models of Entrepreneurial Intention ............................................................ 7 1.1.1 Entrepreneurial Event Model (EEM) .............................................................. 8 1.1.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) ............................................................... 9 1.1.3 Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) model ........................................... 10
2.0 Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intention .................................................. 11 3.0 Institutional Barriers to Entrepreneurship ............................................. 11 4.0 Psychological Barriers in Singapore ......................................................... 14
4.1 Fear of Failure (FoF) .................................................................................. 14 4.1.1 FoF in the entrepreneurial context ................................................................. 16 4.1.2 Existing FoF measures .................................................................................. 18
4.2 Kiasuism .................................................................................................... 20 4.2.1 Role of kiasuism in entrepreneurship ............................................................ 22 4.2.2 Existing kiasuism measures ........................................................................... 23
5.0 Purpose of Study ......................................................................................... 26 6.0 Overview of Theoretical Framework ....................................................... 28
6.1 Rationale for using SCCT model ............................................................... 29 7.0 Aims of Research ........................................................................................ 30
CHAPTER THREE: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE PERCEIVED AVERSIVE CONSEQUENCES OF BUSINESS FAILURE (PACBF) SCALE .................................................................................................. 33
1.0 Phase 1: Qualitative Study on the Perceived Aversive Consequences of Business Failure (Study 1a) ............................................................................... 34
1.1 Method ....................................................................................................... 34 1.1.1 Pilot interviews .............................................................................................. 34 1.1.2 Participants .................................................................................................... 34 1.1.3 Interview procedure ....................................................................................... 35 1.1.4 Data analyses ................................................................................................. 36
1.2 Results ........................................................................................................ 37 1.2.1 Financial damages ......................................................................................... 38
-
iv
1.2.2 Evaluation from others .................................................................................. 40 1.2.3 Threat to self-worth ....................................................................................... 41 1.2.4 Career damages ............................................................................................. 42
1.3 Discussion .................................................................................................. 43 1.3.1 Financial consequences and self/other concern ............................................. 44 1.3.2 Negative evaluation from others and loss of face ......................................... 45 1.3.3 Psychological and emotional impact on self ................................................. 46 1.3.4 Career damages and falling behind peers ...................................................... 46
2.0 Phase 2: Psychometric Properties of PACBF Scale (Study 2a) ............. 48 2.1 Method ....................................................................................................... 49
2.1.1 Participants .................................................................................................... 49 2.1.2 Procedure ....................................................................................................... 50 2.1.3 Materials ........................................................................................................ 54 2.1.4 Analytic plan ................................................................................................. 56
2.2 Results ........................................................................................................ 56 2.2.1 Preliminary analyses ...................................................................................... 56 2.2.2 Dimensionality of PACBF scale ................................................................... 57 2.2.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on validating scales ........................... 62 2.2.4 Validity analyses for PACBF scale ............................................................... 63
2.3 Discussion .................................................................................................. 65 CHAPTER FOUR: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF KIASU
BELIEFS AND MOTIVATIONS (KBM) SCALE ............................................ 67 1.0 Phase 1: Qualitative Study on Behaviours, Motivations, and Emotions
Associated with Kiasuism (Study 1b) ................................................................ 68 1.1 Method ....................................................................................................... 68
1.1.1 Pilot interviews .............................................................................................. 68 1.1.2 Participants .................................................................................................... 69 1.1.3 Interview procedure ....................................................................................... 69 1.1.4 Data analyses ................................................................................................. 70
1.2 Results ........................................................................................................ 71 1.2.1 Examples of kiasu behaviours ....................................................................... 72 1.2.2 Reasons for being kiasu ................................................................................. 75 1.2.3 Emotions associated with kiasuism ............................................................... 77 1.2.4 Indicators of kiasuism .................................................................................... 80
1.3 Discussion .................................................................................................. 83 2.0 Phase 2: Psychometric Properties of KBM Scale (Study 2b) ................. 86
2.1 Method ....................................................................................................... 87 2.1.1 Participants .................................................................................................... 87 2.1.2 Procedure ....................................................................................................... 88 2.1.3 Materials ........................................................................................................ 89 2.1.4 Analytic plan ................................................................................................. 93
2.2 Results ........................................................................................................ 93 2.2.1 Preliminary analyses ...................................................................................... 93 2.2.2 Dimensionality of KBM scale ....................................................................... 94 2.2.3 CFA on validating scales ............................................................................... 98 2.2.4 Validity analyses for KBM scale ................................................................... 99
2.3 Discussion ................................................................................................ 100
-
v
CHAPTER FIVE: RELATIONSHIPS AMONG FOF, KIASUISM, AND ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION (STUDY 3) .......................................... 103
1.0 Hypotheses Development ........................................................................... 103 1.1 Predictors of Choice Goal .......................................................................... 103 1.2 Predictors of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy ............................................... 105 1.3 Predictors of FoF in the Entrepreneurial Context ...................................... 106
2.0 Method ......................................................................................................... 108 2.1 Participants ................................................................................................. 108 2.2 Procedure .................................................................................................... 108 2.3 Materials ..................................................................................................... 109
2.3.1 Personal attributes - kiasuism ........................................................................ 109 2.3.2 Perceived contextual barrier and support ....................................................... 109 2.3.3 Entrepreneurial self-efficacy .......................................................................... 110 2.3.4 Outcome expectations - FoF in the entrepreneurial context .......................... 110 2.3.5 Choice goal – entrepreneurial intention ......................................................... 111
3.0 Results .......................................................................................................... 111 3.1 Preliminary Analyses ................................................................................. 111 3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for PACBF Scale ....................................... 112 3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for KBM Scale .......................................... 115 3.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Other Scales ......................................... 117 3.5 Model Fit .................................................................................................... 120 3.6 Hypothesis Test .......................................................................................... 124
3.6.1 Predictors of choice goal ................................................................................ 124 3.6.2 Predictors of entrepreneurial self-efficacy ..................................................... 124 3.6.3 Predictors of FoF in the entrepreneurial context ............................................ 124
4.0 Discussion .................................................................................................... 125 4.1 Summary of Main Findings ........................................................................ 125 4.2 FoF: A Barrier to Entrepreneurship ........................................................... 127 4.3 Kiasuism: A Barrier and a Facilitator of Entrepreneurship ........................ 127
CHAPTER SIX: GENERAL DISCUSSIONS .................................................. 130 1.0 Summary Of The Three Sets of Studies ................................................... 130 2.0 Theoretical Implications ............................................................................ 136
2.1 FoF in the Entrepreneurial Context ............................................................ 136 2.2 Kiasu Beliefs and Motivations ................................................................... 137
3.0 Practical Implications ................................................................................. 138 4.0 Limitations .................................................................................................. 141
4.1 Generalizability of Findings ....................................................................... 141 4.2 Focus on Entrepreneurial Intention ............................................................ 142
5.0 Future Directions ........................................................................................ 143 5.1 Further Validation of PACBF Scale and KBM Scale ................................ 143 5.2 Establish Nomological Network for PACBF Scale ................................... 145 5.3 Establish Nomological Network for KBM Scale ....................................... 145 5.4 Investigation of Cultural Differences in FoF ............................................. 147 5.5 Examination of Kiasuism in Other Cultures .............................................. 149
6.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 150
-
vi
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 1. Available Measures for Assessing FoF ............................................................... 19
Table 2. Available Measures for Assessing Kiasuism ....................................................... 26
Chapter 3
Table 3. Demographics of Study 1a Participants ............................................................... 35
Table 4. Summary of Study 1a Findings ........................................................................... 39 Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviation of Initial 61 PACBF Items .................................. 51
Table 6. Factor Loading and Communalities of 47 PACBF Items .................................... 58
Table 7. Definition, Internal Consistency, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of PACBF Subscales .......................................................................................................... 61 Table 8. Mean, Standard Deviation, Internal Consistency, Fit Indices for PFAI and STAI ................................................................................................................................... 63 Table 9. Correlations among PACBF, PFAI, and STAI .................................................... 64 Chapter 4
Table 10. Summary of Study 1b Findings ......................................................................... 73 Table 11. Mean and Standard Deviation of Initial 43 KBM Items .................................... 90
Table 12. Factor Loading and Communalities of 28 KBM Items ..................................... 95
Table 13. Definition, Internal Consistency, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of KBM Subscales ......................................................................................... 97 Table 14. Mean, Standard Deviation, Internal Consistency, Fit Indices for KBM Validating Scales ............................................................................................................... 99 Table 15. Correlations among KBM, Psychological Entitlement, Inter-competitiveness, and Kiasu Behaviours .......................................................................... 100 Chapter 5
Table 16. Goodness-of-fit Summary for PACBF Scale ................................................... 113
-
vii
Table 17. Goodness-of-fit Summary for KBM Scale ...................................................... 115 Table 18. Mean, Standard Deviation, Internal Consistency, Fit Indices (Study 3) ......... 118 Table 19. Correlations among Perceived Contextual Support, Perceived Contextual Barrier, and Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy ....................................................................... 119 Table 20. Regression of Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy on Perceived Contextual Support and Barrier .......................................................................................................... 120 Table 21. Correlations among Hypothesized Structural Model Variables ...................... 122 Table 22. Goodness-of-fit Summary ................................................................................ 122 Table 23. Summary of Standardized Path Analyses ........................................................ 125 Chapter 6
Table 24. Summary of Studies Conducted ...................................................................... 133
-
viii
List of Figures
Chapter 2
Figure 1. Entrepreneurial Event Model (EEM) ................................................................... 8
Figure 2. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) .................................................................... 9
Figure 3. The SCCT model ................................................................................................ 10
Figure 4. Cognitive-motivational-relational theory ........................................................... 15
Figure 5. Adapted SCCT model as theoretical framework ................................................ 28
Chapter 3
Figure 6. Procedure for development of a new scale to assess FoF in entrepreneurial context ................................................................................................................................ 33 Chapter 4
Figure 7. Procedure for development of a new scale to assess kiasu beliefs and motivations ......................................................................................................................... 67 Chapter 5
Figure 8. Integrated SCCT choice model ....................................................................... 103
Figure 9. Adapted SCCT choice model ........................................................................... 108
Figure 10. Second-order model for PACBF scale ........................................................... 114
Figure 11. Three first-order factors model for KBM scale .............................................. 116
Figure 12. Path coefficients of hypothesized structural model ........................................ 123
-
ix
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Summary of Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intention ................................. 185
Appendix B. Sample Coding Scheme for Consequences of Business Failure ................ 195
Appendix C. Additional Quotes Associated with Categories in Study 1a ....................... 196
Appendix D. Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI) ...................................... 198
Appendix E. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y ....................................................... 199
Appendix F. EFA Results for One to Eight-Factor Solution (PACBF) .......................... 200
Appendix G. Final 36-item PACBF Scale ....................................................................... 216
Appendix H. Sample Coding Scheme for Kiasuism ........................................................ 218
Appendix I. Additional Quotes Associated with Categories for Study 1b ...................... 219
Appendix J. Psychological Entitlement Scale ................................................................. 221
Appendix K. Inter-competitiveness Scale ........................................................................ 222
Appendix L. Kiasu Tendency Scale ................................................................................. 223
Appendix M. Positive and Negative Kiasuism Scale ...................................................... 224
Appendix N. EFA Results for One to Seven-Factor Solution (KBM) ........................... 225
Appendix O. Final 20-item KBM Scale .......................................................................... 232
Appendix P. Modified Perceived Contextual Barrier ...................................................... 233
Appendix Q. Modified Perceived Contextual Support .................................................... 234
Appendix R. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Scale ........................................................... 235
Appendix S. Entrepreneurial Intention Scale ................................................................... 236
-
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
In many industrialized economies, new business ventures account for more
than 25% of the economic growth (Carter, Gartner, Shaver, & Gatewood, 2003).
Entrepreneurship contributes to the vitality of the economy (Bosma & Harding, 2006;
Chen et al., 2011; Díaz-García & Jiménez-Moreno, 2010) by promoting innovation
(Altinay, Madanoglu, Daniele, & Lashley, 2012; Franco, Haase, & Lautenschläger,
2010), generating new jobs (Altinay et al., 2012; Drost, 2010; Zarafshani & Rajabi,
2011), and creating competition (Nishimura & Tristan, 2011).
Over the past five decades, Singapore economy has evolved from labour-
intensive industrialization in the 1960s to investment-driven economy in the 1970s and
to knowledge-driven economy since the 1980s (Tan, Tan, & Young, 2000; Wong &
He, 2005). Knowledge-driven economy refers to “economies which are directly based
on the production, distribution, and use of knowledge and information” (OECD, 1996,
p. 7). The knowledge spill-over theory of entrepreneurship suggests that knowledge is
embodied in both technology and people and entrepreneurship translates knowledge
into innovation, which contributes to economic growth (Acs, Audretsch,
Braunerhkelm, & Carlsson, 2005).
The development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) is important
as SMEs constitute 99% of enterprises in Singapore and contribute almost 50% of the
national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition to stimulating economic growth,
SMEs also contribute to employment opportunities; 7 of every 10 workers in
Singapore are employed by SMEs (SPRING Singapore, 2013). Hence, enterprise
development and fostering entrepreneurship is of great importance in Singapore.
Due to the economic impact of entrepreneurship, many nations including
Singapore have recognized the importance of providing a supportive environment and
-
2
investing in programs to channel resources to entrepreneurs. For instance, the
Singapore government has played a pivotal role in launching several grants and
schemes to assist new start-ups in gaining access to funding (SPRING Singapore,
2013). While these initiatives provide a supportive ecosystem for new business
ventures, these resources usually go to people who already want to be an entrepreneur.
But how can we encourage people to think about starting a business in the first place?
1.0 Importance of Examining Entrepreneurial Intention
Entrepreneurship is the process where the entrepreneur interacts with the
environment to identify, evaluate, and exploit profitable opportunities (Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000). Before engaging in initial entrepreneurial activities such as
formulating a business plan and obtaining the resources for a business venture, one
needs to have the intent to be an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship is volitional,
conscious, and requires planning; the formation of entrepreneurial intention is
fundamental (Bird, 1988; Drost & McGuire, 2011; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000).
Entrepreneurial intention refers to “a self-acknowledged conviction by a person that
they intend to set up a new business venture and consciously plan to do so at some
point in the future” (Thompson, 2009, p. 676). Entrepreneurial intention is a good
predictor of entrepreneurial behaviour (Arasti, Pasvishe, & Motavaseli, 2012; Carr &
Sequeira, 2007; Drost, 2010; Krueger et al., 2000; Liñán & Chen, 2009). Hence,
identification of the drivers and barriers of entrepreneurial intention can bring insight
that could impact national economic growth.
Many nations are looking for ways to increase entrepreneurial intention as a
way to increase entrepreneurial activity. While many researchers have investigated the
factors that promote entrepreneurial intention, few have examined the factors that
prevent the formation of entrepreneurial intention. Understanding the barriers to
-
3
entrepreneurship is as important as understanding what induces individuals to become
entrepreneurs (Sarasvathy, 2004); removal of the barriers can promote
entrepreneurship.
2.0 Psychological Barriers to Entrepreneurship in Singapore
Research on the barriers to entrepreneurship focused mainly on institutional
factors (e.g., government regulations, market uncertainty). Psychological barriers to
entrepreneurship have received little research attention. One of the reasons the
psychological barriers to entrepreneurship have been neglected could be because
studies on the barriers to entry were largely conducted from business and economic
perspectives.
While investigation of the institutional barriers may be insightful for most
countries, the business and economic perspectives are not able to provide the complete
picture for barriers to entrepreneurial entry in the Singapore context. Singapore is a
world leader in business facilitation (The World Bank, 2016) yet in the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey, a leading entrepreneurship study conducted
across over 100 countries annually, Singapore was ranked 54th (out of 71 economies)
in entrepreneurial intention and ranked 35th (out of 71 economies) in the Total Early-
Stage Entrepreneurial Activity Prevalence (TEA) rate (Singer et al., 2015). Fear of
failure (FoF) and kiasuism were suggested to be the reasons for low entrepreneurial
spirit among Singaporeans (Ho et al., 1998; Koh, 2015; Low, 2006; Yu, 2015).
3.0 Significance of Research
In a speech at the 2011 Start-up Enterprise Conference held in Singapore,
Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Teo Ser Luck highlighted that the lack of
entrepreneurs may be due to Singaporeans being “too afraid to make mistakes, too
afraid to go beyond the boundaries and look at the opportunities” (Yong, 2011). More
-
4
recently, the Singapore government initiated the “Smart Nation” programme to
encourage new innovations to create solutions for real-life problems. During the
launch of the Smart Nation programme, Vivian Balakrishnan, Head of the Smart
Nation Programme Office and Minister of Foreign Affair, urged Singaporeans to
change their attitudes towards success and failure (Lim, 2014). It is believed that FoF
is a huge factor in impeding innovation in Singapore (Persaud, 2013). In the 2014
GEM Singapore report, 39% of the respondents indicated that FoF would prevent them
from starting a business (Chernyshenko et al., 2015).
Recently, Cacciotti, Hayton, Mitchell, and Giazitzoglu (2016) proposed that
the experience of FoF in entrepreneurship involves (i) the anticipation of certain
aversive consequences during the entrepreneurial process and (ii) the experience of
positive or negative affects associated with failing or succeeding to avoid failure. Both
cognitive evaluation and affective arousal influence the behavioural responses to FoF:
action, inaction, or repression.1 FoF is believed to be an important construct in
understanding entrepreneurial motivation (Cacciotti et al., 2016). We noted that the
current available measures to assess FoF in the entrepreneurial context suffer some
limitations. Additionally, to our knowledge, no studies have attempted to include both
personal attributes and contextual factors when examining the influence of FoF.
FoF is not the only psychological barrier believed to play a role in low
entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore. Kiasuism (怕输), a national characteristic of
Singapore, is perceived to impede Singaporeans from starting their own business.
Kiasu is a hokkien term (a Chinese dialect) for fear of losing out and was dubbed as
1 This thesis only focuses on the cognitive element of FoF. We adopted the cognitive-motivational-relational theory and conceptualized FoF in entrepreneurship as a hierarchical, multidimensional construct where FoF is measured by the perceived likelihood of facing the aversive consequences if one fails.
-
5
the “negative complement of competitiveness” (Kagda, 1993) as it stems from greed
and does not breed motivation and commitment (Ho et al., 1998). It was also believed
that kiasuism is related to conformity (Ang, Loh, & Ng, 1996), hence discourages
entrepreneurship.
Although it is often mentioned that kiasuism is one of the reasons for the lack
of entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore (Ho et al., 1998; Low, 2006; Ong, 2016), there
were no empirical research conducted to examine the role of kiasuism in
entrepreneurship. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scientific investigation
to examine the role of kiasuism in entrepreneurship. Individuals with high kiasuism
may be sensitive to FoF, which leads them to have low entrepreneurial intention.
However, kiasuism may also be positively related to entrepreneurial intention;
individuals may not want to lose out potential entrepreneurial opportunities to
someone else and this may result in a sense of compulsion to act. This compulsion
may override FoF and motivates one to start a business. Given kiasuism may cut both
ways, this research seeks to clarify the role of kiasuism in entrepreneurship. We also
notice that the existing measures of kiasuism mainly assess the tendency to display
kiasu behaviours. As the same behaviour can be performed for different reasons, it
may not measure kiasuism accurately. Hence, we suggest that motivation should be
included in any valid measure of kiasuism.
To summarize, while the Singapore government may be providing the
necessary resources and support to help Singaporeans to start their own business, some
people may shudder at the thought of failing a business and consequently give up on
their business idea even before they begin. Singapore provides an interesting context
for the examination of entrepreneurial intention given the strong institutional support
coupled with relatively high FoF and kiasuism. We expect the findings from this
-
6
research to have practical implications for policy-makers interested in increasing
entrepreneurial intention.
4.0 Outline of Thesis
Chapter 1 presented an overview of this research. Chapter 2 provides a review
of the related literature: an overview of the entrepreneurship research and the existing
studies on FoF and kiasuism. Chapter 3 presents the two studies that were conducted
to develop and validate a new scale to assess FoF in the entrepreneurial context.
Chapter 4 presents the two studies that were conducted to develop and validate a new
scale to assess kiasu beliefs and motivations. Chapter 5 presents a study that
investigates the roles of FoF and kiasuism in influencing entrepreneurial intention.
Chapter 6 discusses the implications of this research.
-
7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter begins by reviewing the research on entrepreneurial intention.
Next, existing models of entrepreneurial intention are presented, followed by the
literature on the predictors of entrepreneurial intention. We then present the barriers to
entrepreneurship and the importance of examining psychological barriers in
Singapore. The conceptual definitions of FoF and kiasuism are also presented. The
concluding section of this chapter highlights the goals of this research.
1.0 Entrepreneurial Intention
Entrepreneurial intention is a fundamental construct and is commonly used in the
literature to show the prevalence of entrepreneurship (Bird, 1988; Carr & Sequeira,
2007; Krueger et al., 2000; Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007). Entrepreneurial
intention directs attention and effort towards the goal of starting a new business
(Nishimura & Tristan, 2011; Shook & Bratianu, 2010). Without intention, one may
refrain from starting a business even with the potential to be an entrepreneur (Krueger
et al., 2000). Given the importance of entrepreneurial intention, many scholars have
proposed conceptual frameworks to explain the process of intention formation
(Davidsson, 1995; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Robinson,
Stimpson, Huefner, & Hunt, 1991).
1.1 Models of Entrepreneurial Intention
Two models emerged as the most dominant in explaining the relationships
between personal characteristics and entrepreneurial intention: Entrepreneurial Event
Model (EEM; Shapero & Sokol, 1982) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB;
Ajzen, 1991). In recent years, there are growing research utilizing an alternative
framework, namely the Social Cognitive Career Theory model (SCCT; Lent, Brown,
& Hackett, 1994), to examine the influence of personal attributes and contextual
-
8
factors on entrepreneurial intention (e.g., Bullough, Renko, & Myatt, 2014; Segal,
Borgia, & Schoenfeld, 2002). The three models are presented in the following
sections.
1.1.1 Entrepreneurial Event Model (EEM)
EEM (Shapero & Sokol, 1982), depicted in Figure 1, provides a framework to
examine why individuals choose the entrepreneurial career path among others. Based
on the model, perceived feasibility, perceived desirability, and propensity to act are
determinants of entrepreneurial intention.
Perceived feasibility refers to the capability to start a business and is based
largely on evaluation of one’s resources. Perceived desirability refers to the
attractiveness of starting a business and is affected by cultural and social factors such
as subjective norms. Propensity to act refers to personal disposition to act on one’s
decision; the volition to start a business (Krueger et al., 2000). Scholars have found
empirical support for the use of EEM in predicting entrepreneurial intention (e.g.,
Byabashaija & Katono, 2011; Devonish, Alleyne, Charles-Soverall, Young Marshall,
& Pounder, 2010; Krueger, 1993).
Perceived Feasibility
Perceived Desirability
Propensity to Act
Entrepreneurial Intention
Figure 1. Entrepreneurial Event Model
-
9
1.1.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
In the TPB model (Ajzen, 1991), depicted in Figure 2, intention is a direct
predictor of behaviour and intention is influenced by attitude towards behaviour,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control.
Attitude towards behaviour refers to one’s positive or negative evaluation of
the behaviour and depends on the beliefs about the consequences attributed to the
behaviour (Ajzen, 2002). Subjective norms refer to social pressure to perform or not to
perform the behaviour (Liñán & Chen, 2009) and depends on the approval or
disapproval of important referent individuals or groups (Ajzen, 1991). Perceived
behavioural control refers to the perception of controllability over the behaviour and
the ease or difficulty in engaging in the behaviour (Liñán & Chen, 2009). Perceived
behavioural control is similar to the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
TPB has received extensive approval in many areas of behavioural science
disciplines (Segal, Borgia, & Schoenfeld, 2005). TPB has been used to predict
behaviours such as smoking, voting decisions, and losing weight (Ajzen, 1991).
Scholars have also adopted the model to predict entrepreneurial intention (e.g., Liñán,
Rodríguez-Cohard, & Rueda-Cantuche, 2010; van Gelderen et al., 2008) and also to
predict actual entrepreneurial behaviour (Kautonen, van Gelderen, & Fink, 2015).
Attitude towards behaviour
Perceived Behavioural
Control
Subjective Norms Intention Behaviour
Figure 2. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
-
10
1.1.3 Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) model
The SCCT model, depicted in Figure 3, is a prominent model in explaining
academic and vocational choices. The SCCT model builds on the social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1986), which focuses on the triadic interaction among personal
attributes, environmental factors, and overt behaviour. The SCCT model includes
personal attributes (e.g., gender, age, personality traits) and contextual factors (e.g.,
perceived contextual barrier and support) to provide an integrated view of the career
development process. The SCCT model includes three interlocking models that depict
the dynamic process of career development: formation of vocational interests (interest
model), selection and pursuit of career choices (choice model), and expectation or
performance in the selected career choice (performance model).
The key social-cognitive variables in the SCCT choice model are: self-efficacy,
outcome expectations, and choice goals. Self-efficacy is defined as “people’s beliefs
about their ability to perform particular behaviours or courses of action” (Lent et al.,
2003, p. 458). According to the SCCT model, self-efficacy is a dynamic set of self-
beliefs that is domain-specific and interacts with person, behaviour, and contextual
factors (Lent et al., 1994). Outcome expectations refer to personal beliefs about
possible outcomes as a result of pursuing the choice goal. Adapted from the
Personal Attributes
Background Contextual Affordance
Learning Experience
Contextual Influences
Self-efficacy
Outcome Expectations
Interests Choice Actions
Choice Goals
Performance Outcomes
Figure 3. The SCCT model
-
11
expectancy-value model of work motivation (Vroom, 1964), the SCCT model posits
that people are more likely to pursue a goal when they perceive desirable outcomes.
Choice goals refer to the determination to engage in a particular activity, for instance,
the determination to start a business venture (i.e., entrepreneurial intention). Similar to
EEM and TPB, the SCCT choice model has been used to predict career choice (e.g.,
Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000; Lent, Paixão, Silva, & Leitão, 2010) and
entrepreneurial intention (e.g., Bullough et al., 2014; Segal et al., 2002).
2.0 Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intention
Existing literature on the predictors of entrepreneurial intention have focused
largely on the drivers of entrepreneurship. Two major themes related to the predictors
of entrepreneurial intention predominate the literature: personality traits and contextual
variables. Personality traits found to differentiate between entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs include Big-Five personality, risk-taking propensity, innovativeness, and
proactive personality (e.g., Crant, 1996; Ferreira, Raposo, Rodrigues, Dinis, & Do
Paço, 2012; Gurel, Altinay, & Daniele, 2010; Singh & DeNoble, 2003). Contextual
variables include presence of parental role models and availability of social networks
(e.g., Hmieleski & Corbett, 2006; Van Auken, Stephens, Fry, & Silva, 2006). We have
summarized the past empirical studies that examined the predictors of entrepreneurial
intention in Appendix A. In the following sections, we present the institutional and
psychological barriers believed to impede entrepreneurial entry in Singapore.
3.0 Institutional Barriers to Entrepreneurship
The institutional perspective of entrepreneurship posits that institutional
variables such as culture, government regulations, and economic policies can influence
entrepreneurial activity (Estrin, Korosteleva, & Mickiewicz, 2013). Regulatory
business cost was found to be negatively associated with opportunity-driven
-
12
entrepreneurial propensity; higher regulatory business cost increases the required
returns for the entrepreneurs and acts as a deterrent to starting a new business (Ho &
Wong, 2006).
Business ventures may face failures and can end up in bankruptcy, hence,
countries with harsher bankruptcy laws can deter entrepreneurship development (Peng,
Yamakawa, & Lee, 2009). It was reported that in countries where bankruptcy laws
were more entrepreneur-friendly, such as having lower cost involved in the bankruptcy
procedure, discharging the bankrupt from debts, and when assets are protected during
bankruptcy, there are higher rates of new entry of firms as compared to countries with
harsher bankruptcy laws (Lee, Yamakawa, Peng, & Barney, 2011). These studies on
institutional barriers were consistent with the notion that government regulation can
impose entry barriers to potential entrepreneurs (Porter 1980; as cited in Ho & Wong
2006).
The lack of resources such as financial capital has been recognized as one of
the major barriers to entrepreneurship entry (Ho & Wong, 2006; Van Auken, 1999).
Even with sound business ideas, the lack of capital can hinder the attempt to execute
the plan (Dyck & Ovaska, 2011). Studies found that difficulties in obtaining financial
support and perceived lack of support were some of the barriers to entrepreneurship in
many countries (Kolvereid, Shane, & Westhead, 1993; Shinnar, Giacomin, & Janssen,
2012).
A corrupted environment can also impact entrepreneurial activity; corruption
can be in the form of tax and can impose financial stress on entrepreneurs. It was
found that government corruption was negatively associated with new firm start-ups in
64 countries (Dyck & Ovaska, 2011). Corruption not only is a barrier to entry, it was
also found to constrain growth aspiration of entrepreneurs across 42 countries (Estrin
-
13
et al., 2013).
Institutional variables not only act as a barrier to entrepreneurial activities,
multiple studies have also found these variables to be an obstacle to entrepreneurial
intention. For instance, it was found that perceived unfavourable economic and
political conditions discourage Turkish students from being an entrepreneur (Ozaralli
& Rivenburgh, 2016). Taiwan university students perceived uncertainty in the
economic situation as one of the reasons to why they did not want to be an
entrepreneur (Chen et al., 2011). In a similar study, uncertainty and rivalry in the
market were among the top perceived barriers in starting their own firms by
Indonesian students (Soetanto, Pribadi, & Widyadana, 2010). Lack of funding, bribery
and corruption, high taxes were found to be negatively associated with entrepreneurial
intention among youths in Cameroon (Neneh, 2014).
Many studies have highlighted the institutional barriers to entrepreneurship
entry. However, the institutional barriers to entry do not seem to be the major
contributors to the lack of entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore. The World Bank group
has ranked Singapore as the top economy (out of 189) in the “ease of doing business”
(The World Bank, 2016). Some of the indicators used in the survey to assess the “ease
of doing business” include the administrative burden in paying tax, credit information
sharing, ease in securing property rights, and the time and cost to resolve bankruptcies.
The Singapore government and its agencies not only provide the resources, both
financial and knowledge-based, to encourage new business ventures, government
regulations and economic policies are also made to be more pro-business to facilitate
setting up of new businesses. For example, in 1999, the bankruptcy law was amended
to encourage entrepreneurship; for debts below S$500,000 (US$400,000) the
bankruptcy may be discharged after three years (Tan, 2002). As compared to countries
-
14
such as Chile, where the bankruptcy process may take up to 4.5 years, the bankruptcy
process only takes 10 months in Singapore and the overall cost of bankruptcy is only
1% of the value of the firm’s assets (Peng et al., 2009). Similarly, in 2011, a tax
amendment was passed to help entrepreneurs defray rising costs and inflation through
tax incentives and rebates.
4.0 Psychological Barriers in Singapore
Despite the huge effort made by the Singapore government to promote
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurship activity rates are low
(Singer et al., 2015). Given that Singapore is geographically well-positioned, has a
robust financial infrastructure, low taxes, strong anti-corruption policy, and the
entrepreneurship ecosystem receives ample support from the government, what
contributes to the low entrepreneurial spirit among Singaporeans? Psychological
barriers, specifically, FoF and kiasuism, were suggested to be the reasons for the lack
of entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore (Ho et al., 1998; Koh, 2015; Low, 2006; Yu,
2015).
4.1 Fear of Failure (FoF)
FoF is not unique to entrepreneurship; in fact, it has been widely studied in
achievement settings such as the academic and sports domains. Early achievement
motivation theory conceptualized FoF as an avoidant motivation that orients one to
strive to attain success such that one will not experience shame or humiliation as a
consequence of failure (Atkinson, 1966; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell,
1953). Similarly, Elliot and Church (1997) found that FoF is related to performance-
avoidance goals, where individuals focus on avoiding unfavourable judgements of
competence instead of focusing on demonstration of competence relevant to others
(performance-approach goals). This conceptualization assumes that individual with
-
15
high FoF will exert effort in any task. More recent research has resulted in a
modification of that assertion: individuals with high FoF only strive for success when
the task is instrumental and relevant to their goals (Belanger, Lafreniere, Vallerand, &
Kruglanski, 2013). However, the key point remains that FoF is linked to increased
effort to avoid shame or humiliation.
Early researchers first operationalized FoF as a form of performance anxiety
(e.g., Atkinson & Litwin, 1973; Burnstein, 1963; Rosenfeld, 1964; Zander & Wulff,
1966). They used test anxiety measures such as the Mandler-Sarason Test Anxiety
scale to measure FoF. Birney, Burdick, and Teevan (1969) argued that the
consequences of failure are more feared than the failure itself.
Building on the conceptualization that “it is the aversive consequences of
failure that individuals fear and seek to avoid” (Birney et al., 1969, p. 201), Lazarus
(1991) proposed a second theoretical perspective of FoF grounded in the cognitive-
motivational-relational theory of emotion. Figure 4 illustrates the cognitive-
motivational-relational theory.
Based on this theory, emotions are associated with primary appraisal of how
perceived threats in person-environment relationships affect an individual’s ability to
attain goal(s). The appraisal of threat in evaluative situations will activate cognitive
Threat in person-environment relationship
Figure 4. Cognitive-motivational-relational theory
Primary Appraisal
Cognitive schemas activated
Fear
How does it affect my goal
attainment?
What are the consequences if I
fail?
A form of cognitive response
-
16
schemas or beliefs associated with the aversive consequences of failing and the
anticipation of the threatening outcomes will elicit fear (Lazarus, 1999). Based on this
conceptualization, FoF is measured by the perceived likelihood of having to face the
aversive consequences if one fails (Conroy, 2004).
4.1.1 FoF in the entrepreneurial context
Failure is common in business ventures (Mitchell & Shepherd, 2011),
especially for new ventures (Knott & Posen, 2005). Studies conducted in the United
States found that only half of the new firms are able to last for five years (Shane,
2008) and the typical rate of failure in entrepreneurship hovers between 20% to 60%
(Timmons, 1994). Entrepreneurs who failed in their business reported emotional
distress such as grief (Jenkins, Wiklund, & Brundin, 2014; Shepherd, 2009) as well as
experiencing stigmatization (Singh, Corner, & Pavlovich, 2015; Ucbasaran, Shepherd,
Lockett, & Lyon, 2013). The consequences associated with business failure can be
daunting not just for entrepreneurs but it may also deter one from pursuing an
entrepreneurial career path.
The GEM survey included a measurement of FoF to examine its influence on
entrepreneurial activities and also to investigate national differences in FoF. The
majority of studies that have adopted the GEM’s FoF measurement have reported FoF
to be one of the barriers that prevent individuals from starting a business (e.g., Bosma
& Schutjens, 2011; Hormiga & Bolívar-Cruz, 2012; Wagner, 2007). Additionally, FoF
was suggested to be one of the reasons for lower entrepreneurial intention observed
among women (Noguera, Alvarez, & Urbano, 2013; Sánchez Cañizares & Fuentes
García, 2010). Scholars have also found FoF to be negatively associated with
engagement in nascent behaviours (Arenius & Minniti, 2005) and involvement in
-
17
entrepreneurial activities (Anwar ul Haq, Usman, Hussain, & Anjum, 2014; Vaillant &
Lafuente, 2007).
Using the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI) developed by
Conroy (2001), scholars have found FoF to influence entrepreneurs’ investment
decision (Mitchell & Shepherd, 2010, 2011; Wood, McKelvie, & Haynie, 2014; Wood
& Pearson, 2009). For instance, utilizing conjoint analysis, Mitchell and Shepherd
(2011) found some dimensions of FoF (fear of devaluing self and fear of having an
uncertain future) to impede entrepreneur’s likelihood of investment in potential
opportunities.
While FoF may distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs (Urbano &
Alvarez, 2013), it may not be true that entrepreneurs have no FoF; such fear is still
ubiquitous and may have an impact on subsequent entrepreneurial behaviours. Studies
of FoF in the sports and academic domains have suggested FoF to motivate an
individual to strive to achieve success in order to avoid failure (e.g., Kim & Dembo,
2001; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Rice et al., 2009). Recent studies have also supported
the notion that FoF can have motivating effects on entrepreneurship. Mitchell and
Shepherd (2011) found that not all dimensions of FoF inhibit entrepreneurs; fear of
upsetting important others (a dimension of FoF) was found to motivate entrepreneur’s
likelihood of investment in potential opportunities. Similarly, Morgan and Sisak
(2016) proposed possible dualistic nature of FoF for entrepreneurs. For low aspiration
entrepreneurs, FoF can act as a hurdle; entrepreneurs invest lesser in their venture to
mitigate possible losses. Conversely, FoF can motivate entrepreneurs to strive; FoF
may serve as a fuel for high aspiration entrepreneurs and motivate them to invest more
in their venture to avoid failing. These studies suggest that FoF may play an important
-
18
role in the entrepreneurial process with the implication that it does not have a sole
avoidant impact.
4.1.2 Existing FoF measures
The current available measures for examining FoF are constrained within the
GEM measure and the PFAI. The GEM measures FoF using a single item: “Would
FoF prevent you from starting a business?” The GEM measure assumes a wholly
avoidant outcome of FoF; it presents the leading opinion that FoF is an obstacle to
business start-up. Researchers have also cautioned against the assumption that FoF is
always or only a barrier to entrepreneurship (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2014). Second, FoF
was measured using single binary-choice item, which may not be comprehensive in
understanding FoF in the entrepreneurial context. Finally, as FoF is broadly defined as
a societal attitude, there is a lack of consensus in the definition of FoF in studies using
the GEM data. For instance, some studies defined FoF as risk aversion (e.g., Arenius
& Minniti, 2005; Bosma & Schutjens, 2011; Hormiga & Bolívar-Cruz, 2012), while
others have defined FoF as a socio-cultural factor, where FoF is a consequence of the
social stigma on entrepreneurial failure (e.g., Noguera et al., 2013; Vaillant &
Lafuente, 2007).
Birney et al. (1969) were the first to describe fears that are associated with the
consequences of failure: fear of devaluating self-esteem, fear of non-ego punishment
(e.g., withdrawal of tangible rewards), and fear of reduction in social value. Despite its
theoretical richness, there is lack of empirical research that examines the relevance of
the proposed consequences of failure. Only until recently, Conroy, Poczwardowski,
and Henschen (2001) interviewed athletes and performing artists to explore their
beliefs related to the consequences of failing in their performance domain. By using
inductive content analysis, they identified a multidimensional model of the
-
19
consequences of failure. Conroy (2001) then developed the PFAI based on the
dimensions identified in his qualitative study (Conroy et al., 2001).
Although the PFAI provides a more detailed view of the consequences of
failure as compared to the single-item GEM measure, it was only validated within the
sports (e.g., Sagar, Boardley, & Kavussanu, 2011; Sagar & Jowett, 2010) and
academic domains (e.g., De Castella, Byrne, & Covington, 2013). These perceived
consequences of failure may differ from business failure and it remains unclear
whether the PFAI is applicable to entrepreneurship. Table 1 summarizes the current
available measures for assessing FoF.
Due to the limitations in the existing measures of FoF, we aim to develop and
validate a new measure to assess FoF in the entrepreneurial context. With the new
measure, we then examine the role of FoF in influencing entrepreneurial intention.
Table 1
Available Measures for Assessing FoF
Name of Measure No. of
items
Context Purpose of Measure
Limitations
1. GEM single-item FoF Measure:
“Would FoF prevent you from starting a business?”
1 Entrepreneurship Included in GEM surveys to examine national differences in FoF level.
• Assumes wholly avoidant outcome.
• Not comprehensive.
• Lack of consensus in the definition for studies utilizing the GEM measure.
2. Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI; Conroy, 2001)
Sample items: “When I am failing, my future seems uncertain.”
“When I am failing, I blame my lack of talent.”
25 Sports/academic To assess FoF in performance domains (academic, sports).
• Consequences of failure in sports/academic context may be different for business failure.
• Applicability of PFAI to entrepreneurial context is unclear.
-
20
4.2 Kiasuism
“Everything also I want”, “Everything also must grab”, “Everything also
number one”: with these mottos in a series of comic books published in the 1990s by
Johnny Lau, Mr. Kiasu, a local comic character, became an icon in Singapore. Since
the release of the first comic book, a range of popular merchandise such as magazines,
mugs, watches, T-shirts, 13-inch rulers (an inch longer than normal), bumper stickers,
and even a television series featuring Mr. Kiasu was introduced. What sparked the
popularity of this comic character among Singaporeans? Although Mr. Kiasu is
extreme, Singaporeans relate to him because he mirrors the behaviours they see in
daily life and captures a key characteristic of Singapore’s cultural fabric: kiasuism
(Lee, 2010).
Kiasuism (from the hokkien term, kiasu (怕输), which is literally translated as
fear of losing out) is an entrenched feature of Singaporean society (Kirby & Ross,
2007; Van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). The Australian Macquarie Dictionary, which
records many colloquial terms, first defined kiasuism as “an obsessive desire for value
for money, hailed as a national fixation in Singapore” (The Macquarie Dictionary,
1997). Kiasuism also connotes self-centeredness, greed, inconsideration, and crass
behaviours (Tan, 2003).
Three studies attempted to conceptualize kiasuism (i.e., Ho et al., 1998;
Hwang, Ang, & Francesco, 2002; Wierzbicka, 2003). In a pioneering study, Ho et al.
(1998) asked participants ranked a list of 17 adjectives to determine how the adjectives
were associated with kiasuism. Kiasuism was found to be associated with the fear of
losing out, which refers to “an innate unwillingness to be disadvantaged or always
wanting to be ahead of others” (Ho et al., 1998, p. 363), selfishness, being calculative,
greedy, and kiasi-ism (怕死, a Hokkien term, which refers to risk-aversive
-
21
behaviours). Ho et al. (1998) indicated that kiasuism is distinct from competitiveness,
and emphasized that unlike competitiveness, which promotes drive and commitment,
kiasuism promotes greed and selfishness. Hwang et al. (2002) defined kiasuism as “an
obsessive tendency to get the most out of every transaction and drive to get ahead of
others” (p. 75). Unlike Ho et al. (1998), Hwang et al. (2002) suggested that kiasuism is
a Chinese form of competitiveness, where individuals strive for academic or career
success to gain face (Stevenson & Lee, 1996). On the contrary, Wierzbicka (2003)
used semantic analysis of texts by Singaporean authors and proposed that kiasuism is a
form of mental attitude, driven by opportunity and apprehension, which leads to the
display of kiasu behaviours.
Behaviours perceived to be kiasu are easy to observe in Singapore. Examples
include piling up food at buffets, taking airline cutlery as souvenirs, and queuing for
freebies (Ho et al., 1998). The portrayal of Singaporeans as kiasu and selfish, the “ugly
Singaporean” phenomenon, was especially prominent in the local media in the early
1990s (Hodkinson & Poropat, 2013; The Economist, 1995). The raised profile of
kiasuism became a concern to the Singapore government (Ho et al., 1998). The
government initiated campaigns, such as the 1993 National Courtesy Campaign, to
target kiasu behaviours, and politicians urged Singaporeans to gain control of their
own kiasuism (National Archives of Singapore, 1996). However, kiasuism has
remained a consistent element of Singaporean society. A recent survey of 2,000
Singapore residents found that 58% still perceive Singaporeans as kiasu, competitive,
materialistic, and self-centred (Chan, 2012).
In 2012, the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, cautioned against “ugly
Singaporean” behaviour in his National Day speech (Chang, 2012). A member of
parliament, Miss Kuik Siao-Yin worried that the “kiasu syndrome runs deep in the
-
22
Singaporean blood” (Saad, 2014) and advocated the need to eliminate kiasuism to
drive entrepreneurship in Singapore (Ong, 2016).
4.2.1 Role of kiasuism in entrepreneurship
Kiasuism is believed to be one of the reasons for Singapore’s low
entrepreneurial spirit among young adults (Low, 2006; Tan, 2003). Kiasuism was also
suggested to be one of the reasons why young people prefer stable professional jobs to
entrepreneurship (Ho et al., 1998; Low, 2006; Ong, 2016). The association of kiasuism
with competitiveness by Hwang et al. (2002) questions the assumption that kiasuism is
a barrier to entrepreneurship especially in view of the Entrepreneurial Orientation
(EO) theory.
According to the EO theory, an organization’s entrepreneurial orientation may
be reflected through the processes, practices and decision-making styles of the firm
(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). The EO theory posits that autonomy, innovativeness, risk-
taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness are the characteristics of an
entrepreneurial organization (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Although the EO theory was
proposed to clarify the characteristics of organizations that are more likely to
undertake new ventures (i.e., more entrepreneurial), it can also be extended to
individuals and considered as personality traits that may distinguish entrepreneurs
from non-entrepreneurs (Wooten, Timmerman, & Folger, 1999). Competitive
aggressiveness was proposed to be an important characteristic of entrepreneurship as
new start-ups are more likely to fail than established firms (Lee & Peterson, 2000). If
competitiveness is a characteristic of entrepreneurs and kiasuism reflects a Chinese
form of competitiveness as suggested by Hwang et al. (2002), does kiasuism motivate
individuals to start a business or would the fear of losing hinder such motivation?
-
23
4.2.2 Existing kiasuism measures
We could only find nine published studies related to kiasuism (i.e., Ellis, 2014;
Ho et al., 1998; Hwang, 2003; Hwang et al., 2002; Hwang & Arbaugh, 2006; Kirby,
Kirby, Bell, & Schafer, 2010; Kirby & Ross, 2007; Li & Fang, 2002; Wierzbicka,
2003). Of these nine studies, only two studies focused on developing a scale to
measure kiasuism (i.e., Ho et al., 1998; Hwang et al., 2002). We review these two
studies next.
Ho et al. (1998) asked participants to classify whether various commonly
encountered social behaviours were viewed as kiasu and the results were used for the
construction of the kiasu tendency scale. Based on the qualitative interviews, kiasu
behaviours ranging from social to academic context were written as items (e.g., “piling
on food at a buffet”, “studying before semester commences”). The kiasu tendency
scale comprises of ten hypothetical scenarios associated with kiasu behaviours. Level
of kiasuism is measured by the frequency of engaging in the kiasu behaviours.
One of the limitations of the kiasu tendency scale is the sole focus on
behaviours and the assumption that the display of kiasu behaviours is a representation
of kiasuism. The assumption that these behaviours are motivated by kiasu reasons can
be problematic as engagement in the behaviours may be motivated by non-kiasu
reasons. For example, items such as “queuing way ahead of time to buy tickets” and
“stowing reference books in other shelves” reflects general social behaviours that may
not have a kiasu nature. That is, “queuing way ahead of time to buy tickets” may be
due to genuine interest in attending a concert and “stowing reference books in other
shelves” may be due to laziness.
Hwang et al. (2002) equated kiasuism with a “highly competitive spirit” (p.
75), and indicated that “a review of reports from the popular press in Singapore” (p.
-
24
74) suggested a distinction between positive and negative kiasu attitudes. A positive
kiasu attitude “reveals itself through diligence and hard work by individuals to stay on
top of the situation” and a negative kiasu attitude “reveals itself through personal envy
and selfish behaviours” (p. 75). A qualitative analysis of 11 interviews supported their
two posited forms of kiasuism. Based on these results, they developed a six-item
kiasuism scale targeting the academic context. Like Ho et al. (1998) before them, the
authors generated items based on kiasu behaviours. Three items represented positive
kiasu behaviour (e.g., “I do research on my coursework”) and three items represented
negative kiasu behaviour (e.g., “I try not to let others know the right answers”).
Two follow-up studies (i.e., Hwang, 2003; Hwang & Arbaugh, 2006) utilized
Hwang et al. (2002) kiasuism scale and emphasized that both facets of kiasuism
(positive and negative) encompass “a desire to get ahead of others” (Hwang, 2003, p.
564) and “include a comparative competitive component that is directed at being
ahead of others” (Hwang & Arbaugh, 2006, p. 9). Despite the consistent conceptual
emphasis on comparison with others, the kiasuism scale developed by Hwang et al.
(2002) does not appear to emphasize comparison with others consistently. Although
the negative items in Hwang et al. (2002)’s scale reflect a desire to get ahead of others,
the positive items do not encompass any comparative aspect. For example, although
one might “do research on coursework” to get ahead of other students, it is also
possible to be motivated by an intrinsic interest in the course material, or the desire to
develop oneself regardless of what others are doing. Similar to the kiasu tendency
scale, the items used to measure kiasu attitudes were also behavioural-based (e.g., “I
do not share useful knowledge with others”, “I try not to let others know the right
answers”).
-
25
To summarize, the current available measures for kiasuism are largely based
on the display of kiasu behaviours. As discussed, these measures may not be an
accurate measurement of kiasuism as the display of such behaviours may be motivated
by non-kiasu reasons. The disparity between the definition of kiasuism and the content
of the items lead us to question the conceptual validity of the measures, especially in
light of Wierzbicka (2003)’s conceptualization of kiasuism as a form of attitude that
drives the display of kiasu behaviours. Wierzbicka highlighted the importance of
examining the motivations behind behaviour to determine whether it is kiasu, as the
same behaviour can have differing motivations. Therefore, we suggest that beliefs and
motivations associated with kiasuism should be included in any valid measure of
kiasuism. Table 2 presents the current available measures to assess kiasuism.
-
26
Table 2
Available Measures for Assessing Kiasuism
Name of Measure No. of
items
Context Purpose of Measure Limitations
1. Kiasu Tendency Scale (Ho et al., 1998)
Sample items:
“Queuing way ahead of time to buy tickets.”
“Stowing reference books on other shelves.”
10 Social and academic
To assess the frequency of engaging in kiasu behaviours as a measurement of kiasuism.
• Focus on behavioural aspect of kiasuism.
• Psychometric properties not reported.
• Assumes kiasu behaviours to be a representation of kiasuism.
• Items supposedly reflecting kiasuism may be motivated by non-kiasu reasons (e.g., genuine interest, laziness).
2. Positive and Negative Kiasuism Scale (Hwang et al., 2002)
Sample items:
Kiasu Positive: “I do research on my coursework.”
Kiasu Negative: “I try not to let others know the right answers.”
6 Academic To assess the frequency of engaging in kiasu behaviours in the academic context.
• Focus on behavioural aspect of kiasuism.
• Items for positive kiasuism are general behaviours that may be motivated by non-kiasu reasons (e.g., intrinsic interest in course materials).
• Positive kiasuism items do not reflect comparative aspect.
5.0 Purpose of Study
Studies on the barriers to entrepreneurship have largely focused on how
institutional barriers influence entrepreneurial entry. Although barriers in general have
been relatively neglected as compared to drivers of entrepreneurship, research on
psychological barriers to entrepreneurship were less extensive as compared to
institutional barriers.
The entrepreneurial process is described as an emotional journey (Baron, 2008);
starting a business involves emotional elements such as fear (Schindehutte, Morris, &
-
27
Allen, 2006). Fear was found to be involved in different stages of the entrepreneurial
process (Cardon, Foo, Shepherd, & Wiklund, 2012; Hayton & Cholakova, 2012).
Although fear plays an important role in the entrepreneurial process, limited attention
was given to the role of fear, specifically, FoF and fear of losing out (kiasuism).
Hence, in contrast to the studies that investigated the influence of institutional barriers
on entrepreneurship, the current study investigates the roles of FoF and kiasuism in
influencing entrepreneurial intention. FoF and kiasuism were chosen as the focus of
this research as both represents fear and are highly relevant in the field of
entrepreneurship.
Singapore was selected as a context for investigation because the Singapore
government has taken many actions that might be expected to increase entrepreneurial
intention. Furthermore, the business and economic perspectives cannot provide a
complete picture of entrepreneurial intention, as is demonstrated in Singapore, where
there are few institutional barriers, and yet the intention to become an entrepreneur is
low (Singer et al., 2015).
The present research is motivated by: (i) the call for more in-depth studies on
the FoF construct in the entrepreneurial context and to develop a new measure of FoF
(Cacciotti & Hayton, 2014; Cacciotti et al., 2016), (ii) the lack of in-depth research on
the kiasuism construct in understanding how, why, and where kiasuism manifests itself
(Kirby et al., 2010), and (iii) our observation that there is lack of empirical research in
examining the role of FoF and kiasuism in influencing entrepreneurship.
-
28
6.0 Overview of Theoretical Framework
The SCCT model has been recommended as a theoretical framework for the
study of perceived career barriers such as FoF (Swanson, Daniels, & Tokar, 1996). We
adopted the SCCT choice model (i.e., self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and choice
goal) to examine the roles of FoF and kiasuism on undergraduates’ entrepreneurial
intention (see Figure 5).
Kiasuism is a mental attitude (Wierzbicka, 2003), hence we hypothesize this
personal attribute to influence one’s level of FoF in the entrepreneurial context
(negative outcome expectations), which in turn influence entrepreneurial intention.
Individuals with high kiasuism may be sensitive to FoF, which leads them to have low
entrepreneurial intention. We also hypothesize that kiasuism may have a direct effect
on entrepreneurial intention.
Self-efficacy is a motivational construct that accentuates the belief in one’s
ability to perform a given task successfully (Bandura, 1977). Individuals with high
Figure 5. Adapted SCCT model as theoretical framework.
Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy
Choice goal: Entrepreneurial
Intention
Outcome Expectations:
FoF in Entrepreneurial
Context
Personal attributes: Kiasuism
Perceived Contextual Support Perceived Contextual Barrier
-
29
self-efficacy are more likely to pursue and persevere in a given task than individuals
with low self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is both task and domain specific
(Bandura, 1977, 1997) . When applied to the entrepreneurial context, it is defined as
“an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to successfully perform entrepreneurial
roles and tasks” (Zhao & Seibert, 2005, p. 1265). Several studies have found positive
relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention; the
higher confidence an individual has in executing entrepreneurial-related tasks
successfully, the higher the intention to start a business venture (e.g., Díaz-García &
Jiménez-Moreno, 2010; Kristiansen & Indarti, 2004; Shook & Bratianu, 2010). Self-
efficacy not only plays a role in influencing entrepreneurial intention, it also influences
FoF as people are less likely to expect undesired outcomes when they view themselves
to be efficacious (Lent et al., 2000). Self-efficacy was also found to be influenced by
contextual influences, specifically, contextual barriers (e.g., discouragement from
family members) can diminish self-efficacy while contextual support (e.g., having role
models) can increase self-efficacy (Lent et al., 2000; Lent et al., 2001).
6.1 Rationale for using SCCT model
Although both EEM and TPB were well-received for their parsimony in
explaining entrepreneurial intention, they were also criticized for being overly
simplistic (e.g., Munro, Lewin, Swart, & Volmink, 2007). The core constructs of EEM
and TPB are largely person-centred (e.g., evaluation of one’s ability) and are only able
to explain 35% to 40% of the variance in entrepreneurial intention (Krueger et al.,
2000). This suggests that entrepreneurial intention may also be influenced by other
variables such as contextual factors (e.g., support system, presence of role models).
Although the TPB was first developed to explain diverse social behaviours and
EEM was developed specifically in the entrepreneurial context, scholars have
-
30
highlighted the similarities between EEM and TPB (e.g., Krueger et al., 2000;
Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014). According to Krueger et al. (2000), perceived feasibility
(in EEM) and perceived behavioural control (in TPB) are comparable as both
constructs are associated with self-efficacy. Similarly, both perceived desirability (in
EEM) and attitude towards behaviour (in TPB) measures the affective beliefs and
values attributed to being an entrepreneur.
The SCCT model was primarily used to predict academic and vocational
choices. The SCCT model includes personal attributes, as were the EEM and TPB
models, and also went beyond by taking into account of contextual factors. Aside from
examining how the core constructs influence academic and vocational choices directly,
the SCCT model also considered how the core constructs (e.g., self-efficacy) influence
academic and vocational choices through indirect effects (e.g., via outcome
expectations). Because the SCCT model has advantages over EEM and TPB, this
research adapts the SCCT model as a framework to examine the influence of FoF and
kiasuism on entrepreneurial intention.
7.0 Aims of Research
Due to the limitations in the current available measures for FoF and kiasuism,
our first aim is to develop and validate two new scales: (i) to measure FoF specific to
the entrepreneurial context and (ii) to measure kiasuism more accurately by examining
the beliefs and motivations associated with being kiasu. A mixed-method approach
was utilized in the development of the two scales as “the use of quantitative and
qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of the research
problems than either approach alone” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 5) and allows
us to achieve depth and breadth (Chen, 1997). To achieve sufficient depth, we utilized
qualitative methods to explore the domain of interest to gain insights to participants’
-
31
experiences and perception (Creswell, 2003). A qualitative approach is applicable to
phenomena that are rare, exploratory in nature, and the focus of the study is inductive
(Creswell, 1998). The qualitative findings are used to generate the content for the new
scales and quantitative methods are utilized to achieve breadth so as to provide
generalizability of our qualitative findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Our
second aim is to investigate the influence of FoF and kiasuism on entrepreneurial
intention together with personal attributes and contextual factors found to be drivers of
entrepreneurship. To achieve these aims, we conducted three sets of studies.
Chapter 3 presents the two studies conducted to develop and validate a new
scale to assess FoF in the entrepreneurial context. We first conducted a qualitative
study to explore the perceived aversive consequences of business failure by
Singaporean undergraduates. This is based on the conceptualization that FoF is a
hierarchical, multidimensional construct where the lower-order dimensions represent
the perceived aversive consequences of failure (Birney et al., 1969; Conroy et al.,
2001; Conroy, Willow, & Metzler, 2002). The qualitative findings provided a
foundation for the development of a new scale to assess FoF in the entrepreneurial
context. The newly constructed scale was subjected to validation analyses.
Chapter 4 presents the two studies conducted to develop and validate a new
scale to assess kiasuism. We also utilized qualitative methods to explore the concept of
kiasuism for the development of a scale that measures the beliefs and motivations
associated with being kiasu instead of focusing on kiasu behaviours. Similarly,
psychometric properties of the newly constructed scale were examined.
Chapter 5 presents the study that we conducted to examine the relationships
among the FoF, kiasuism, and entrepreneurial intention by adopting the SCCT model
as a framework. The newly constructed scales were utilized to measure FoF in the
-
32
entrepreneurial context and kiasuism. Considering the importance of contextual
factors, we also integrated perceived contextual barrier and support in the SCCT
model.
Chapter 6 discusses the theoretical contribution of this study and the practical
implications for policy-makers interested in increasing entrepreneurial spirit among
undergraduates. Limitations and future directions are also discussed.
-
33
CHAPTER THREE: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE PERCEIVED AVERSIVE CONSEQUENCES OF
BUSINESS FAILURE (PACBF) SCALE
This chapter presents how we develop and validate a new scale to assess FoF
in the entrepreneurial context. The development and validation of the new scale is
guided by the following procedure as shown in Figure 6.
The cognitive-motivation-relational theory of emotion (p. 15) serves as a
theoretical framework for the development of a new measure to assess FoF in the
entrepreneurial context: appraisal of threatening outcomes elicits fear (Lazarus, 1999).
Study 1a (N = 35): To explore the perceived aversive consequences of business failure through qualitative interviews. Interview Questions: “What do you think will happen to an entrepreneur who failed in his/her business?”, “What do you think are some of the consequences that the entrepreneur may need to face if he/she failed in the business?”, “How would the fear of failure influence your decision to be an entrepreneur?” and “What are the consequences of business failure that may stop you from being an entrepreneur?”.
Items generation based on qualitative results found in Study 1a.
Pilot Study (N = 38): To assess comprehensibility and clarity of the scale items, item reduction for initial pool of items.
Study 2a (N = 401): To investigate the psychometric properties of the newly constructed scale: Dimensionality, reliability, and validity.
Phase 1
Phase 2
Figure 6. Procedure for development of a new scale to assess FoF in the entrepreneurial context.
-
34
FoF in the entrepreneurial context is measured by the perceived likelihood of having to
face the aversive consequences should one’s business fails.
1.0 Phase 1: Qualitative Study on the Perceived Aversive Consequences of Business Failure (Study 1a)
In Phase 1, we aim to identify the set of outcomes of business failure that are of
greatest concerns to young Singaporeans. In order to achieve these goals, we utilized
qualitative interviews to